Out of 13,950 only 23 article peer reviewed articles dispute Man Made Climate Change

The science reflected by the OP is clear and is reiterated and illustrative of the consensus view:

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

"Consensus" is nothing more than a show of hands,and has NOT ONE DAMMED THING TO DO WITH SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

Yeah, you're ANOTHER Big Science Expert, obviously, since I'm the one citing arriving at SCIENTIFIC PROOF via SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and your the one calling "consensus" scientific proof.

Yeegads...ANOTHER Leftninny Warmist completely ignorant of anything REMOTELY APPROACHING actual scientific knowledge...but has the gall to pretend it is The Arbiter of What is Real Science....pathetic, but HILARIOUS....

What you know about science wouldn't fill a thimble, and has been spoonfed to you by POLITICAL WEBSITES...sponsored by Warmist propagandists.

 

Wow. "Wikipedia" huh? Now THERE"s a definitive source of scientific data.....der.

Note...you began your rant declaring all the "scientific proof", yet now, can only cite "SCIENTIFIC OPINION";
grasp the difference?


OK, now "concentrate":
Only experimentation, verifiable , repeatable results, uitlizing SCIENTIFIC METHOD, (including a CONTROL), can establish SCIENTIFIC PROOF, and determine SCIENTIFIC FACT.

"Surveys of opinion" are bird cage liner, scientifically speaking...sorry.

 

1. Is Jim Powell counting all the papers that including the phrase "global warming", written between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012 from the Web of Science that were written by skeptics?

2. Do all the papers in Jim Powell's search besides the "23" endorse AGW?

 

When significant parts of the corporate media are openly embracing and indeed pushing climate 'scepticism', is there any meaningful justification for this in the climate science? No. Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 'clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.'

Powell said:

'Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.'

Adding:

'Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.'

The notable US science writer Phil Plait 'marvelled' at Powell's 'persistence in unearthing the facts and figures', saying:

'His premise was simple: if global warming isn't real and there's an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.'

But Powell's findings were clear, says Plait:

'There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

'When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don't publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they're doing isn't science. It's nonsense. And worse, it's dangerous nonsense. Because they're fiddling with the data while the world burns.'

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/...a-tale-of-ice-smokescreens-and-rebellion.html

 

Now you are filibustering because you cannot answer simple questions,

1. Is Jim Powell counting all the papers that including the phrase "global warming", written between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012 from the Web of Science that were written by skeptics?

2. Do all the papers in Jim Powell's search besides the "23" endorse AGW?

 

Duh! Darwin's theory on Natural selection is "opinion" overriden by scientific consensus. Jesus man, you are dense.

 

The elephant in the room is what you are ignoring. No surprise there after all you are a denialist...Lol.

 

Why do you resort to dishonest ad hominems when you cannot answer simple questions?

1. Is Jim Powell counting all the papers that including the phrase "global warming", written between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012 from the Web of Science that were written by skeptics?

2. Do all the papers in Jim Powell's search besides the "23" endorse AGW?

Everyone can see you are avoiding very simple questions.

 

Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 'clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.'

What do you not understand about that?

 

ANd is also COMPLETELY UNPROVEN,and thus, is only an UNPROVEN THEORY...duh....


I wouldn't be calling other people "dense", in the midst of jumping up and trumpeting your abject IGNORANCE of the topic.

OPINION does NOT = FACT.

Consensus is nothing more than OPINION, which "overrides" NOTHING.

Sorry that they didn't cover that for you in sociology/marxism 101....

 

The entire peer review process in regards to climate change has been indisputably exposed as BLATANTLY CORRUPTED by the Warmist elite, per their OWN internal communications.

(Post #131)
What do you not understand about that? Something else they failed to edify you about, in socialism 101?

 

You have no idea how the concept of theory relates to science. You are as thick as (*)(*)(*)(*). Natural selection is proven scientific fact even though scientists refer to it as a theory..Are you aware of the concept 'tempo and mode'?

 

Total bullcrap. Amazing how much faith you have in your utter absence of anything even CLOSE to actual scientific understanding.

Allow me to illustrate:
Water is H2O= SCIENTIFIC FACT= TRUE 100% of the time,and PROVEN SO.

Theory is an UNPROVEN IDEA,and NATURAL SELECTION is a broad term, for a number of occurrences.
It is not a "SPECIFIC FACT", as it has not been PROVEN TO BE TRUE 100% of the time...or you wouldn't still be here, would you?


fact

/fakt/

Noun

1.A thing that is indisputably the case.


and


the·o·ry

/ˈTHēərē/
Noun

1.A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"




DO I need to post the definition of what "supposition" means as well, Oh Great Scientific Genius?

 

You haven't a clue. Again, you are falsely conflating the scientific concept of theory codified as established fact, with the non- scientific concept. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is a fact established as a result of the scientific consensus. The said consensus doesn't necessarily mean that 100 percent of scientists in the field agree with Darwin's theory. Similarly, one will invariably find a tiny minority of scientists who don't accept the scientific consensus view regarding AGW if one looks hard enough. But equally that doesn't make it any less a fact as far as the science is concerned. You really haven't got a grasp on the basics.

 

Total bullcrap, again. "Scientific consensus" PROVES NOTHING. It is nothing more than OPINION.

What part of that is more than you can process?


If one is interested in Truth, one uses SCIENTIFIC METHOD, to DETERMINE SCIENTIFIC FACT.

I realize that , in the midst of all your blathering, you have't the FAINTEST IDEA what that even means,as evidenced by your asinine default drone mantra of citing "consensus" as PROOF.

You just don't know WTF you are talking about...that's all. You are at best, a poli/sci major,and hav eno more understanding of ACTUAL SCIENCE, that what is spoonfed to you, from Warmist Propaganda sites...just like any Leftninny.

Science...like Math, is just one of the Great Mysteries to the Left, which is how you are all soeasily duped into accepting, and spreading, such complete IDIOCY as your pretense that "consensus" has some meaning to REAL SCIENTISTS, as opposed to SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

You can't help it; complete ignorance of ACTUAL science is endemic of the Left.

- - - Updated - - -

What's an even better thing is that "consensus" proves NOT JACK(*)(*)(*)(*).....

 

I understand his dishonest propaganda and your filibustering very well. Can you answer these questions?

1. Is Jim Powell counting all the papers that including the phrase "global warming", written between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012 from the Web of Science that were written by skeptics?

2. Do all the papers in Jim Powell's search besides the "23-24" endorse AGW?

 

You really are a simpleton:

Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental or empirical data or objective verifiable observations.[9][10] "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence.[11]

A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. —Douglas Futuyma [12]
Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently, evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[13][14] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[15]
The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

 

Why are you citing a source that can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection? Don't you have reliable sources?

 

The evaluation is clear. Have you comprehension problems like the guy who doesn't understand the concept of scientific theory pertaining to objective fact?

 

Information derived from Wiki cites reliable sources.

 

Can information on Wikipedia be inaccurate or not derive from a reliable source?

- - - Updated - - -

Why are embarrassing yourself by dodging the questions? Everyone can see you are incapable of answering them,

1. Is Jim Powell counting all the results that including the phrase "global warming", written between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012 from the Web of Science that were written by skeptics?

2. Do all the results from Jim Powell's search besides the "23-24" endorse AGW?

 

A cursory examination of the footnotes will answer that question